United States District Court, D. New Jersey
JASON H. MILLER, Plaintiff,
WARDEN CHARLES E. COREEN, et al., Defendants.
Madeline Cox Arleo, District Judge United States District
matter has been opened to the Court by Plaintiff James H.
Miller's filing of an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The Court previously screened Plaintiffs
Original Complaint for dismissal, proceeded the Complaint in
part and dismissed it in part, and provided Plaintiff with
leave to submit an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff submitted an
Amended Complaint, which was docketed on April 8, 2019. (ECF
No. 9.) Because it is not clear whether the Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 9) is Plaintiffs all-inclusive Amended Complaint,
the Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file
a Second Amended Complaint prior to screening the Amended
Complaint for dismissal.
prior screening Memorandum and Order, the Court construed
Plaintiffs Complaint to raise claims under
§1983. (ECF No. 1.) The Court determined that
Plaintiff stated claims for failure to protect against John
Doe Defendants 2, 3, and 4. The Court also determined that
that Plaintiff stated a claim for inadequate medical care
against John Doe Defendant 5, a supervisor, who allegedly
failed to call for medical attention after Plaintiff was
assaulted. The Court also dismissed without prejudice the
Complaint as to Warden of Essex County Correctional Facility
(also identified as Defendant 1) because Plaintiff failed to
allege sufficient facts to show that the Warden was
personally involved in the alleged wrongs or that the County
of Essex could be held liable for deficient policies under
Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658, (1978). The Court permitted
Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint to the extent he
could cure the deficiencies in his claims against the Warden
and/or the County of Essex. Finally, because the Plaintiff
was proceeding pro se and the Defendants were John Does, the
Court stated that it would authorize limited discovery
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(d) and permit Plaintiff to
submit a proposed Rule 45 subpoena limited to discovering the
identity of the John Doe Defendants. (See ECF No.
timely submitted an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 9.) Federal
law requires this Court to screen Plaintiffs Complaint for
sua sponte dismissal prior to service, and to
dismiss any claim if that claim fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)
and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
is cautioned, however, that the Amended Complaint
replaces the original one. Florida Dep't of
State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U.S. 670, 706 n. 2
(1982) (White, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
("It is the complaint which defines the nature of an
action, and once accepted, an amended complaint replaces the
original."). See also Zrodskey v. Head
Classification Officer, Civ. A. No. 3:11cv00283, 2011 WL
5881813, *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 23, 2011) (citing Snyder v.
Pasack Valley Hosp, 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002))
("As a general matter, once an amended complaint is
filed, that document replaces all prior complaints.").
the Amended Complaint reasserts § 1983 claims from the
Original Complaint and names additional John Doe Defendants.
(See ECF No. 9, Complaint at ¶¶ 7-9,
Plaintiff has sued additional Defendants, there are fewer
relevant facts in the Amended Complaint. Notably, unlike the
Original Complaint, the Amended Complaint does not assert or
provide facts suggesting that the Unknown Receiving and
Discharge Officers (Defendants (5) and (6) in the Amended
Complaint) acted with deliberate indifference in placing
Plaintiff in Housing Dorm with rival gang
members. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-21.)
light of Plaintiff s pro se status, the Court will direct
Plaintiff to inform the Court as to whether ECF No. 9 is his
all-inclusive Amended Complaint within 30 days of his receipt
of this Order. To the extent it is not, he may submit an
all-inclusive Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of his
receipt of this Order. The Court will administratively
terminate this action pending Plaintiffs response to the
Court's Order. If Plaintiff fails to respond to the
Court's Order within the timeframe provided, the Court
will screen the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), and claims that were previously
proceeded by the Court may be subject to dismissal.
IS, THEREFORE, on this 28 day of August, 2019,
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall inform the
Court in writing as to whether ECF No. 9 is his all-inclusive
Amended Complaint within 30 days of his receipt of this
Order; and it is further
that Plaintiff may submit an all-inclusive Second Amended
Complaint within 30 days of his receipt of this Order; and it
that the Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY
TERMINATE this action pending Plaintiffs response to
the Court's Order; and it is further
that if Plaintiff fails to respond to the Court's Order
within the timeframe provided, the Court will reopen this
matter and screen the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B); and it is further
that the Clerk of the Court shall serve Plaintiff with copies
of this ...